Thus effectively wiping out much of the financial benefit of buying used games, all while introducing new DRM to enforce publishers' double-dipping!

I cited the source, wich was serious, so I only want to ask : Can you read ?

Your point being? I'm serious too, like your source.

I'd argue these folks ARE consuming what they're buying. The difference is that they're buying hype and names, not videogames per se. Doubtless there's some shrink out there who specializes in treating shopaholics who can give a pseudo-scientific explanation...

As for those folks being a minority, I'd love to agree with you...but nearly every time I put my faith in the gaming community, I get let down. Paid online, rip-off DLC, high console failure rates, bloated game prices, online passes: all of these and more are extremely anti-consumer, but after initial howls of protest folks demurely buckled in and accepted these as the new normal.

Even DRM has largely met with acceptance; Steam was villified in the early days, since it really is just another DRM scheme at heart, but to hear folks tell it today it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, and Valve can do no wrong. I would only be mildly surprised if the newest form of DRM became accepted too, especially if Microsoft/Sony/whoever take some steps to sweeten the pot. After all, they're letting you resell your games in some way/shape/form, so is it really that different than what we have now, when you really stop to think about it?*

*Yes

I think it's just a bigger change in culture/the markets.

Remember when their used to be Music Stores? The Warehouse anyone? Sold used tapes, CD, records. Tower Records?

Remember Video Stores? Tower Video, Blockbuster, Gold Coast, etc.?

It just looks like Game Stores are going to go the same way. Which is kinda too bad, as I've been to some fun midnight launches. The retail system is just changing.

Ha.  True.  Probably just something we all need to accept like it or not.

We all know the network pass is to cut out the used-game market and therefore you'd have a choice of buying a new pass or a new game so this money goes directly to the company.

You give me entire trilogies/series on superior hardware for $10, when the console versions each cost more at Gamestop, and I'm not going to lose sleep over not being able to trade it in or let people borrow. Especially on PC, where such a thing was usually never an option to begin with.

On consoles, though? Being able to borrow, trade and sell used games on my own terms has been an invaluable advantage over the PC experience. Indeed, the only reason I was willing to try many games this gen was because of that option; there were far fewer games I was willing to gamble full-price on than generations past, and fewer still that actually felt worth the investment. I don't know if that'll be the case broadly, but I know they'll have to do a lot more to get me on board next gen if they're going to restrict those options.

True true. But I don't think it'll be as catastrophic as it should be: I'm still rooting for an industry-wide 1983-style collapse, but I think even this line isn't going far enough to cause that.

So essentially, the restrictions are worth it if the price is low enough. In other words, it's not principle, it's cost. Isn't that exactly what I said?

The problem is I often buy my games when they are old, and that usually means there are no new copies available. I also buy most of my games for $20 max, I rarely see a purpose in buying a game new when 1-2 years down the road it's $20. Rarely will I play and beat a game within 6 months of owning it. So had 360 had this policy on no used games, I wouldn't own 17/52 of my 360 games (I bought them because they were cheap and I heard good things).

This means that I would own about 32.7% less games.

Which means that I would buy 3 more Wii games, or 13.6% more games for Wii.

---

There.